Dire Warnings and Melting Starfish: Fukushima Fearmongering, Volume 3

This is the third in a series of pieces debunking the scaremongering and hysteria regarding the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant. I believe the anxiety about the meltdown and its aftermath comes from a mix of negativity toward nuclear power, hostility toward plant operators TEPCO (which is well-deserved in most cases), a lack of knowledge about basic science, distrust of experts (who are seen as dishonest shills) and the common habit of sharing social content that’s driven by strong negative emotions – often without understanding it, and sometimes without even reading it.

Using links to good science and some basic concepts in logic, I’ve demolished two of the most prominent lies about Fukushima already, one that Pacific Ocean fish is unsafe to eat and the other that the West Coast is being “absolutely fried” by radiation from the disaster. This time, I’m not going to debunk one single post, but address a grab bag of myths, exaggerations and scaremongering racing around social media. Some of it you’ve probably seen many times, and some of it might be brand new, but all of it needs to be dealt with.

CLAIM: The ocean is broken. This is the title of an October article from Australia’s Newcastle Herald, chronicling the journey of Ivan Macfadyen, a yachtsman who retraced a voyage between Melbourne and Osaka, and ten years later found the Pacific Ocean virtually devoid of life but teaming with floating trash. With its attention-grabbing title and compelling content, it went viral, with over half a million views in three days. People connected the dots and linked the dead, garbage-filled ocean that Macfadyen encountered on his trip to Fukushima, and the piece has been used as part of the exaggerated story since then.

Debris from the tsunami. Coming soon to a beach near you. (Reuters)

But the link between the two doesn’t appear to exist. As the ocean conservation blog Upwell points out, the story in the Newcastle Herald isn’t a hard science piece, and has no citations or links to relevant research. It’s not meant to. It’s a human interest story, the relaying of a personal anecdote, and rooted in emotion. It’s full of phrases like “nauseous horror” and “astounding volumes” – compelling writing, but not science. The story is also not at all about the nuclear plant, but the damage done from overfishing and plastic pollution. It doesn’t even mention Fukushima by name. As such, it’s worth reading, but not useful for any discussion about the meltdown.

CLAIM: David Suzuki’s Dire Warning. The removal of the spent fuel rods from Fukushima could have apocalyptic consequences if done incorrectly, warn activists around the world. Chief among them is David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist, scientist and author, well known in his native country, but not elsewhere. A post containing video of him discussing the fuel rod removal, called “David Suzuki’s Fukushima Warning is Dire and Scary” went up on Huffington Post and was a viral hit. So what is his warning, and is it accurate?

The facts related to the fuel removal are certainly cause for concern: 1,500 fuel rods (also called fuel bundles) must be removed from Reactor #4 at Fukushima. The work is normally done via computer controlled crane, but because of the damage from the tsunami and a subsequent hydrogen explosion, the rods, which are 4 meter tubes containing pellets of uranium fuel and cocooned in water, have to be removed by manual guidance. It’s slow, deliberate and dangerous work, and also unprecedented. Spent fuel rods are pulled from nuclear reactors all the time, but never ones with the damage that Reactor 4 suffered.

TEPCO has insisted they’ve taken every possible precaution, hence the delays, but given their previous bungling, it’s easy to see why some people don’t believe them.

A screen grab from TEPCO’s video of the first fuel rods being removed

And David Suzuki isn’t some average internet crank. His warning that an earthquake or major mistake during the fuel removal could trigger planetary catastrophe – “It’s bye-bye Japan—and everybody on the west coast of North America should evacuate” are his exact words – carries weight. He’s a highly respected guru, internationally honored and venerated for his groundbreaking work – in genetics. What he is NOT is a nuclear physicist.

And real nuclear physicists (which, full disclosure, I am not) disagree strongly with Suzuki. Many believe he is deliberately exaggerating the risks of the fuel rod removal in particular and the entire Fukushima situation in general. They believe the idea of Japan being obliterated and the US needing evacuation is ridiculous and totally implausible. This skepticism toward fearmongering has been the trend over and over in fields that directly intersect with the Fukushima disaster – nuclear power, radiation, oceanography, medical research. Most of the people who research this stuff for a living believe that the fear being pushed on us about Fukushima has little or no basis in reality.

Could they all be paid shills kowtowing to their paymasters in Big Nuclear? Sure. But if amateur scientists and anti-nuke activists can push their version of events, so can the experts. And the experts agree that the risk of Armageddon from Reactor 4 is miniscule, if not non-existent. And as of this writing, the fuel removal process has begun without incident. Let’s hope it continues.

CLAIM: Fukushima is as bad as 14,000 Hiroshima bombs. Big numbers are scary. Hundreds of tons of water. Thousands of uranium rods. Trillions of becquerels. We’ve seen figures like this tossed around constantly in the two plus years since the tsunami hit Fukushima. The new number scaring the hell out of people is that the release of radiation from Reactor 4, if the fuel rod removal isn’t handled properly, could be the equivalent of 14,000 Hiroshima bombings. As many as 166,000 people died due to the Hiroshima bombing, so this is nothing to fool with, right?

When dealing with a hyperbolic claim like “as much radiation as 14,000 Hiroshimas!” it’s best to go back to the original source and see if the research they did was sound. In this case, the claim has appeared in numerous places without any kind of citation (and has also been quoted as 15,000, which is a pretty big difference in the world of atomic bombs going off) making it hard to track down where it first came from.

The first use that I found of the 14,000 figure is in a Reuters piece from August, where it was given by Hiroaki Koide, assistant professor at Kyoto University and a researcher in nuclear power who has since turned into an anti-nuclear activist. Neither Koide nor the piece’s two authors offer substantive proof of how they came up with this number, what kind of radiation would be released or what it means in a greater context – only the fear of what the worst case scenario. It also doesn’t bother explaining that the Hiroshima bombing and the Fukushima meltdown are vastly different and not really comparable except as incidents involving radiation in Japan. As a further imbalance against good science, the piece heavily quotes Arnie Gunderson, another nuclear power researcher turned activist.

Since then, the claim of 14,000 Hiroshimas has spread all across the internet with no context and is unthinkingly used as an example of the nightmare that Fukushima could unleash. But without hard science to back up the claim, I can’t take it as anything other than an exaggeration offered by someone who believes nuclear power should be abandoned. It may not be a lie, but I can’t accept it as the truth. Not without evidence.

Incidentally, the atomic bomb that detonated over Hiroshima, the so called “Little Boy,” was actually less powerful than the one that went off over Nagasaki. But “10,000 Nagasakis” doesn’t sound as scary as “14,000 Hiroshimas.”

CLAIM: The scary radiation map. Many people have covered this one before, but since it’s still going around, I’m going to one more time. The map of red and yellow pouring out of Japan that you’ve seen a thousand times on social media is NOT a map of radiation. It has NOTHING to do with radiation. It’s a map of wave heights after the tsunami that caused the initial Fukushima incident. If it wasn’t, why would the waves stop when they hit land? Radiation doesn’t do that. Water does.

CLAIM: Cancer rates are spiking in Fukushima’s children. Many bloggers are claiming that pediatric thyroid cancer rates have sharply risen around Fukushima, a trend that was seen in Ukrainian children after the Chernobyl meltdown. These allegations directly contradict a UN report from May that claims there would be no deaths from radiation as a result of the incident – owing to the quick evacuation of the area.

However, a Lancet study from August confirmed an alarming rise in childhood thyroid cancer around Fukushima – with 44 confirmed or suspected cases out of 193,000 tested children. This is a much higher rate than normal. But the children are being screened regularly, which normally doesn’t happen. It’s rare to know that a child has a thyroid disorder until they start complaining about not feeling well, and better detection of any disease will reveal more cases of that disease. Furthermore, the spike in cancer rates post-Chernobyl didn’t appear until 4-5 years after the meltdown, which is not enough time for cancer to start developing around Fukushima – and nowhere near enough time for it to develop in the United States.

Right now, more research is needed to prove whether the spike is a result of Fukushima or better detection. Until then, I want to point out one particular line in the Lancet article:

“Unscientific comparisons with Chernobyl, which released far more radiation than Fukushima, are creating needless anxiety, particularly among the 160 000 people living close to the Fukushima facility who were evacuated in the hours after it was rocked by a tsunami on the afternoon of March 11, 2011.”

Words to live by.

CLAIM: Fukushima radiation is the cause of an epidemic of melting sea stars. Marine biologists are buzzing about a string of grisly starfish deaths in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. The creatures suddenly become covered with lesions, lose their internal pressure, begin disintegrating and die. However, this is a well-chronicled disease called starfish wasting syndrome, and has caused massive die-offs many other times, including as far back as 1983.

Experts in the field don’t know what causes the disease or how to stop it. There’s speculation that it’s a parasite or possibly warmer water temperatures. But nobody in a position to know better is blaming it on Fukushima. To do so is simply post hoc logic – it happened after Fukushima, therefore that’s the cause.

There are many other claims about the damage caused by Fukushima. All such stories, be they from TEPCO, reliable news sources or fringe conspiracy sites should be treated with skepticism and examined carefully. They should NOT be passed around without being read, and without consideration for whether they’re true or not. To do so only encourages needless anxiety.

About Mike Rothschild

Mike Rothschild is a writer and editor based in Pasadena. He writes about scams, conspiracy theories, hoaxes and pop culture fads. He's also a playwright and screenwriter. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/rothschildmd.

As a nuclear engineer, I appreciate people like you who are informed and reasonable about the kind of things that go on in a nuclear plant. I have one pedantic correction to offer, and that is that the fuel currently being moved from unit 4 is not being removed from the reactor, but from the spent fuel storage pool. The fuel had been entirely unloaded when the earthquake struck and concerns with unit 4 involved the spent fuel pool and not the reactor itself.

Thanks again for a well-written series. Radiation is indeed scary stuff, but there’s a lot of misunderstanding among the public, and articles written by journalists who are not engineers don’t help.

Thanks for this. All this past summer my Facebook feed was a nonstop barrage of scaremonger articles from assorted blogs and Russia Today (amongst other crap from NatualNews and RealFarmacy). The articles were scant on information and context, and were mainly just pure speculation. Since I don’t know much about the subject I was pretty terrified. I’m Canadian myself (now in Southern California) and so there’s some part of me that holds Suzuki as an authority on science, so when his comments came out it was pretty frightening for me. Suddenly I couldn’t sleep, and started to feel physically ill. I could think of nothing else. Soon after I found Skeptoid and these blog posts. The links provided (and twitter feeds) have also led me to a lot of actual information, like an excellent article from Slate on Fukushima’s Worst Case Scenarios. It is a serious situation, yes, but at least my imagination and negative emotions aren’t getting the better of me.

“This health risk assessment concludes that no discernible increase in health risks from the Fukushima event is expected outside Japan. With respect to Japan, this assessment estimates that the lifetime risk for some cancers may be somewhat elevated above baseline rates in certain age and sex groups that were in the areas most affected.”

This one is paper is worth reading and if qualified challenging the findings and conclusions.
______________________

Changes in confirmed plus borderline cases of congenital hypothyroidism in California as a function of environmental fallout from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown
______________________http://www.scirp.org/journal/OJPED/

Chew wrote; “… study is by Sherman and Mangano …” Have not had a conversation on this one no one here wants to touch it. Much kudos to you.

Still there is a major problem with your comment, as the article is based on a ‘premise’ in an essay and reference to some ‘findings’.

The obvious tell for you if using critical thinking was the date of Michael Moyer’s article in The Scientific American you linked. I was clearly published on June 21, 2011 and written earlier;

1) The comment pre dates the published study I liked to. So does not refer to it or could credibly critique it *.

2) Your comment was to ‘discredit’ the authors of the Essay.

3) An essay outlines a ‘premise’, and the author discredits their premise, which is ok. His opinion and right

4) The ‘authors’ went on and ‘completed an actual study’ backing up their ‘premise’ outlined in the study.

5) If Michael Moyer had published a critique of the actual paper published, this to would be up for peer review. Available and itself critiqued.

6) Anyone with the right credibility can actually critique this paper and if you find one please post a link.

7) By Michael Moyer is a known nuclear power / energy lobbyist. His opinion is as much use as Democrats on Bush or Republicans on Obama. In critical thinking accounting for biases goes to credibility of the line of logic.
______________________

Chew appreciate the conversation though.

However it is a fail and can only recommend due diligence in personal study. Although not writing a paper, any comment does require rudimentary principles of critical thought **.

______________________

*
The article actually quoted the author writes that “physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay. Not to mention the authors credibility is in question because he did not cite or link to the essay. Just discredited it by branding an Al Jazeera publication.

John, if you want to heckle that’s ok. It works for me, go right ahead.

However, if you want to call me a troll on a critical thinking site then you will need to be more concise. Otherwise some might say there is a bias in moderating, that hurts the thread and sites credibility.

My presence here is and continues to be a test and measure.

John Denys wrote; “The article you cite has nothing to do with Fukushima”

Which one do you mean?

There has been no critical thought process evident on all three posted. Perhaps your scanning technique keeps missing the keyword ‘Fukushima’.

I’m going to take a guess that the “14,000 times worse than Hiroshima” figure comes from the sheer mass of fissionables involved, ignoring the fact that at Fukishima, the fuel is not at criticality and is not exploding. The bomb used a few pounds of refined uranium, whereas a reactor has tons on hand.

Artor says wrote; ” … fuel is not at criticality and is not exploding.” No, but the comment tells us all you have little knowledge on the process of unique circumstances in decommissioning.

Can only recommend critical thinking on this one, because both sides are worth understanding.

TEPCO is a maintenance company, and all it has is engineers with that experience and very few of them left…

Most leading nuclear scientists with credibility want ‘professionally’ educated and experienced engineers to do this delicate work. These are US nuclear engineers and they have been locked out. Because this is avery delicate geopolitical situation, keeping this in house with the Japanese code of loyalty and silence has become paramount.

We all know what would happen if US nuclear engineers worked on this one.

My link shows Morgano and Sherman are dishonest researchers. So dishonest they have lost all credibility from all but the most rapid anti-nuclear activists. How many times does someone have to lie to you before you stop believing them?

“4) The ‘authors’ went on and ‘completed an actual study’ backing up their ‘premise’ outlined in the study. ”

Link please.

“7) By Michael Moyer is a known nuclear power / energy lobbyist.”

Citation needed.

“His opinion is as much use as Democrats on Bush or Republicans on Obama. In critical thinking accounting for biases goes to credibility of the line of logic.”

I agree. Now apply the same standards to Morgano and Sherman. Research their background. What do you find? Unbiased neutral researchers or foaming-at-the-mouth anti-nuclear hysterics?

Chew wrote; “My link shows Morgano and Sherman are dishonest researchers.” Interesting. Because if this was true the proper place for this is within the peer review process. Would you not agree?

In reply to my comment ; ‘In critical thinking accounting for biases goes to credibility of the line of logic.”’

“Chew wrote; I agree. Now apply the same standards to Morgano and Sherman.”

Apparently not, the well established route for challenging science is clear. nIt is called the Peer Review process.

All you have your teeth into is an opinion, as nicely wrapped as it is in his version of science, he is not quoting or using a peer reviewed paper to refute the study.

1) It was written before the ‘study’ was published.

2) It has no reference to a peer review paper refuting the findings* .

That’s it – a failed comment for the second time.

Much kudos for wearing your passion for the nuclear weapons energy industry on your sleeve.

As I said there is a due process and the credibility of the author Michael Moyer knows it. Apparently others cannot recognise nuclear weapons energy industry Moyer is an industry lobbyist. Including you, but don’t believe me this is a test and measure for your interior.
______________________

* If you fine any peer review could you please link to actual published scientific critique if there is any?

Nuclear weapons energy industry? I could have sworn we were talking about spent nuclear reactor rods in the Fukushima incident. In which case remove the word weapon as spent rods which is what is being removed and were most damaged contain just 3% of uranium 235 or 238 or plutonium 239. In tests for weaponization of uranium minimum amounts of enriched fuel needed, i.e. U238 (that’s the symbol for enriched uranium in case you don’t know as much about since as you claim), must be greater than 20%. That makes a nuclear explosion impossible. While melt down was possible in initial phases of the crisis it was in active reactors not spent fuel. Also as we are dealing with spent fuel as that was most of the fallout 3% uranium would not make it to America in high enough concentrations to cause any ill health effects. That’s why we are speaking of cessium in the oceans environment and life. The main point nuclear weapons energy industry is not an oxymoron but a moronic combining of terms which do not coexist.

“Nuclear weapons energy industry?” The Nuclear Energy and Weapons industry is one group. The IAEA is up front about this issue.

The weapons industries could not exist without the energy industry and the whole arms race has been made acceptable selling the perception of benefit.

Heads up, on record there is three China Syndrome events at this incident. It is considered by the industry to be the worst so far. Only time will paint an accurate picture of environmental damage. Unfortunately for us this runs into the most obvious conflict of interest problem on the planet.

If feel safe, warm and fuzzy reassured by the IAEA that there is little to be concerned about good.

Ah, now we see a real bias. You assume since I criticized a few anti-nuclear activists I must therefore be pro-nuclear. I am not pro-nuclear. I know its pros and cons and I believe the cons outweigh the pros.

At least the conversation is still going on. Some here just abuse and run. Using a kind of a guerrilla tactic for cowards, you earn more kudos from me.

Chew wrote; “Mongano and Sherman are extremely biased sources …” In your opinion.
A biased source would be in house science quoted from within and industry. For instance on record is Monsanto’s denial DDT was toxic to humans for decades or that the tobacco industry still denies the science surrounding its harm for over fifty years. Both having produced in house papers refuting harm, but avoiding peer review. That never went to peer review.

Do you need a further list of examples? Because it is an important ‘point of difference’ as the information you are promoting / believe in real.

Certainly not real like real science that is published for peer review under peer review process or examination by scientist qualified to comment and challenge. This robust mechanism is the benchmark everything else is done by a ‘wannabe, some even becoming pseudoscientific rubbish that this site challenges.

The critical thinking on this on this issue is;

Who has critiqued this paper and the credibility of the authors?

So far all you have produced is the opinion of a science blogger, and sometime writer for the Scientific American, someone highly qualified in fields other than his criticism.

So for the third time your comment is a fail.

But please publish a link to a credible peer review, but don’t waste your time with another opinion. Even if it fits you model of the life the universe and everything.

As I have repeated many times, a genuine critique would be most welcome, even if it backs Moyer’s premise.

Yes, I need you to clarify why you ignored the peer-review I provided that cast serious doubt on the veracity of Mongano and Sherman’s study of congenital hyperthyroidism, a review by a peer that was ignored by a supposedly peer-review journal. Not all peer-reviewed journals are equal. Some, like scirp.org, will publish any submission if the authors pay.

I also need clarification why a study that wasn’t peer-reviewed in the first place needs to have a peer-review to discredit it.

Look up peer review in wikipedia, or on a university science site.
This is just a very basic critical thinking skill taught in high school fro K8-K10.

Chew wrote; “Yes, I need you to clarify why you ignored the peer-review I provided that cast serious doubt on the veracity of Mongano and Sherman’s study of congenital hyperthyroidism …” What are you talking about? You keep referring to an article talking about an essay and its premise!

Where very early findings and conclusions were drawn.

So where is this study and critique published, which recognised scientific journal? I access to subscriptions for all the leading publishing sites and a search using yours and Moyer’s keywords is coming up ‘blank’, please can you help me?

Please do not say the Scientific American Journal or any other blog associated with a lobbyist.

Give us all a credible source, that’s all. No much to ask surely?

As I have repeated many times, a genuine critique would be most welcome, even if it backs Moyer’s premise.

“What are you talking about? You keep referring to an article talking about an essay and its premise! ”

No, I linked to a peer-review conducted by an epidemiologist of the congenital hyperthyroidism study. You appear to be easily confused between the authors’ study of congenital hyperthyroidism and their article on infant deaths.

“So where is this study and critique published, which recognised scientific journal? ”

You are applying a double standard. Mongano and Sherman’s study was never published in a “recognized scientific journal” to begin with. It is logically inconsistent to demand a critique appear in a “recognized scientific journal” when the original study was never published in a “recognized scientific journal”.

“…any other blog associated with a lobbyist. ”

You keep repeating this claim and have ignored repeated requests by me to provide a citation to prove it. Please continue to repeat it and ignore my requests. Nothing could better demonstrate your intellectual honesty.

And lastly science analysis much like choosing a character or eye witness to a crime in a trial are very similar. If you use a witness who is a known drug user liar or has mental illness they are not credible and will do more damage to the prosecution than good which is why they are seldom used. In a scientific paper using an author, I do not use scientist as he is not, who has repeatedly written opinion pieces as factual or made up numbers or hasn’t accounted for error as that is they key part of any academic paper, will discredit the research even if it’s true. Doing this more than once will discredit the scientist for the rest of his life. For reporters or authors this is better known as cooking a piece and this is what has been done multiple times by this “writer” as all he does is inconsequentially write words without attaching or connecting true meaning to them.

I realize you have an internal need to make the horrors that were and are Fukushima aware to the world. But using false data and false science does not help or open peoples eyes at best you create hysteria at worst you spread misinformation worse than Wikipedia can. Please use your logic.

Chew wrote; “Again I say, citation needed. Do you have anything to say about Moyer that you haven’t made up from pure fantasy?” Just do a google search using keywords, if you cannot see article, after article, promotes the nuclear weapons energy industry and that these are on blogs with paying advertisers.

Well that is sad….. just sayin.

Still that is what cognitive bias is all about and why it needs testing in critical thinking. http://goo.gl/7s4yVk

Which is exactly what I am doing.

What is interesting is your answers are proof for anyone to see it works.

“Just do a google search using keywords, if you cannot see article, after article, promotes the nuclear weapons energy industry and that these are on blogs with paying advertisers. ”

Ah yes. “Google it yourself.” The desperate tactic of those who have been caught lying. If your allegation were true, you would have flooded the comments with link after link showing Moyer is a lobbyist for the nuclear power industry. Instead, all you found was stories was Moyer critiquing Mongano and Sherman’s BS studies.

You keep using the term “nuclear weapons energy industry”. The inclusion of the word “weapon” in that term is just bizarre. Is English not your first language?

“If your premise was true that Moyer was ‘unbiased’ show me a link to a site where he promotes production of alternative energies in preference to nuclear. You cannot.”

It is not my premise. I have stated no premise regarding Moyer. You did. Again you are trying to shift the burden of proof. For someone who presumes to lecture others about critical thinking, you are completely bereft of its basic tools.

In this example, you are making the Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy.

-If A, then B.
-B.
-Therefore A.

-If someone is a lobbyist for the nuclear energy industry, then they will criticize anti-nuclear activists.
-Moyer criticized anti-nuclear activists.
-Therefore Moyer is a nuclear energy lobbyist.

“As he only promotes nuclear as the primary option and does this as paid writer in a commercial media group.”

Oh great. Another unsubstantiated claim I suppose I will have to ask another hundred times for evidence.

“Why anyone would deny Moyer was a lobbyist when he is comfortable with it is beyond me. ”

Anyone who has not seen evidence for something would be a fool to believe it. You are confusing legitimate criticism with advocating the opposite side. This is a common sign of a mind who cannot think critically.

“Then why is the IAEA the overarching authority on of the nuclear industry.”

The IAEA has no authority over any industry.

“It is common knowledge to any K8-10 student of science that weapons grade plutonium is integral to nuclear power production. ”

Er, no. It is a by-product of the nuclear energy industry. Nuclear armed states may purchase and refine the waste product but it is not an integral part of it.

We are talking about two different studies. Try to keep up. The first study I referenced was an article written for a news site by Mongano and Sherman about infant deaths. The SciAm blogger tore it to shreds.

The second study is the study that you claimed was peer-reviewed. It was published by Scientific Research Publishing, a known predatory publisher. They recently published a fake study: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60/suppl/DC1
If someone publishes a fake study then they are not a peer-reviewed “recognized science journal”.

Chew wrote; “We are talking about two different studies. You are I have asked you repeatedly to explain yourself. After saying the ‘That study is by Sherman and Mangano, the same buffoons who came up with the increased infant death “study”.’ ” Your comment…. prove it is not just an opinion of a blogger. So far all you have linked to is blogs.

You wrote; “If someone publishes a fake study then they are not a peer-reviewed “recognised science journal”.

Brilliant, so your premiss is:

‘this is not a real study in a recognised science publication.’ Scientific Research Publishing is an academic publisher of peer-reviewed open-access electronic journals, the fact that it is Chinese does not mean the journal is not legitimate.

If you can prove it is illegitimate, please do. Is it just a case of sour grapes the ‘reds under the bed’ displacing your family back in the 1950s?

Science Journal editors do not allow ‘fake’ studies, in the historical times it has this has caused credibility issues with every other published article.

Chew wrote; “We are talking about two different studies…… GROKED from first comment.

Where is the peer review? Simple question…” I would have thought. After all these kind of ‘red herrings’ are stock in trade for lobbyists and if you aren’t lifting copy for the line of logic, it raises an obvious question.

Chew wrote; “The SciAm blogger tore it to shreds.” Would not expect anything else of him. Just a mute point at best.

This has always been understood, so where is the scientific peer review questioning Moyers’s premiss?

I have repeatedly stated I respect your choices. If there is nothing refuting the ‘study’, there will be ‘grasshopper’, have some patience. You will eventually have something, that is how the nuclear lobby works.

“Scientific Research Publishing is an academic publisher of peer-reviewed open-access electronic journals, the fact that it is Chinese does not mean the journal is not legitimate.”

Chinese? Who said anything about it is not being legitimate because it is Chinese? You are desperately trying to discredit my claim by trying to attribute nonsensical claims to me. You are the only one to mention Chinese ownership.

If you can prove it is illegitimate, please do.”

I already did! If you had bothered to read the link I provided you could read it yourself. Here is the link to the email chain to and from the publishers of Scientific Research Publishing: http://scicomm.scimagdev.org/data/journals/28/

“Is it just a case of sour grapes the ‘reds under the bed’ displacing your family back in the 1950s?”

“Is it just a case of sour grapes the ‘reds under the bed’ displacing your family back in the 1950s?”

Chew wrote in reply; “Wow, dude. You are getting really pathetic in your attempts to discredit my claims.”

Pathetic, then why is a Chinese publisher not valid?

_________________

You have discovered there are bogus scientific papers. Very good.

Ten points.

This little revelation is no conspiracy, but widely understood in the publishing industry and the primary reason for a test and measure by the frustrated journalist.

As I said it goes to credibility and the robust nature of peer review.

So yes, I am familiar with the link as a subscriber of AAAS.

In case you missed the point, this is the purpose of peer review.

You seem to have lost this train of logic in rebuttal.

Because if papers were all legitimate or bona fide, why would there be a need for peer review?

Just to state the obvious. The utter transparent reality. Your hammering this point is no basis for a conclusion, simply part of the process of discovery in critical thinking. Which leaves the other ninety five percent of your due diligence.

So that dealt with, there is still the issue of challenge to the study I linked to which you commented and I replied on.

_________________

Chew wrote in the fist reply; ” “That study is by Sherman and Mangano, the same buffoons who came up with the increased infant death “study”.

So once again.

Where is the peer review refuting its validity, backing your premiss the authors are ; “buffoons”?

Lets add also proving your claim it is fake study.

So eyes front and centre.

Now demonstrate peers have discredited this study.

Because these excursions avoiding the question have gone on long enough.

It’s not about “a Chinese” publisher. It’s about a publisher that published an intentionally fake paper! What is so hard to understand about this?

“You have discovered there are bogus scientific papers. Very good.

Ten points.”

And yet you refuse to admit the journal that published Mangano and Sherman’s study publishes bogus scientific papers.

“So that dealt with, there is still the issue of challenge to the study I linked to which you commented and I replied on. ”

Asked and answered. I showed beyond any doubt the journal is bogus; it will print anything. I linked to a review of the study by an epidemiologist that pointed out fatal flaws in the study but the journal published it anyway.

“Where is the peer review refuting its validity, backing your premiss the authors are ; “buffoons”?”

I have already provided a link to it twice. You have yet to even acknowledge that you have seen the link, let alone read the review.

“Peer review is published in the Journal concerned accepted by an editorial review for credentials. ”

Chew wrote; Wrong. The study is published after it passes peer-review; the actual reviews are not published. The reviewers may publish their reviews wherever they want.

Correct, your point is…….

Because I did not add further to the comment then; ‘…I am wrong’. Seriously. The line of logic is flawed like the rest.

Chew wrote; Peer-review is completed before publishing. Why can’t you understand this simple concept? Something that is published before it is peer-reviewed is not “peer-reviewed”.

Yes, as I said; “For Example; AAAS published paper is up for peer review by colleagues qualified and accepted for publication by the editorial staff.”

But not published as criticism until after, before it is kept in house for academia. After published for people like myself.

So now you are saying that a publisher would allow a paper to see the light of day after being discredited. Not to mention a public comment in a in a blog with a loose reference is credible.

WTF …. This science we are taking about, not the play ground.

_________________

Again, you still have not demonstrated the paper has been discredited, just shown me two blogs of individuals stating their opinion. One by @YuriHiranuma stating an opinion of Steve Wing.

All you have to do is admit this is also ‘your opinion’.

What is the problem?

I asked you to justify calling these academics ‘Buffoons’.

You can’t.

But as I said, my opinion has not formed.

Yours has.

Which is a purest form of cognitive bias any one has demonstrated to me in any thread on any subject.

Besides the fact he is a consultant to the nuclear weapons energy industry and holding onto the data the military put out about nuclear weapons in post Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Makes reference to it in lectures etc.etc. [ interesting… do note that nuclear weapons link]

And I certainly can’t find Steve Wing’s critique of the Dec 20013 I referred to published legitimately that you rubbished.

So once again, excursions. Deception, specifically self deception.
Its called cognitive bias and transparent through this thread in your comments.

_________________

This conversation will remain open giving you a chance to admit you have formed ‘an opinion’ before reading a legitimate ‘critique’.

Even if it is in the vain hope that you actually find something to demonstrate it is ‘fake and discredited’, which would be useful to myself and others.

With the caveat naturally that it is actually from someone independent of the nuclear weapons energy industry and qualified medically in this discipline.

I do feel they should first be focusing on reinforcement of the spent fuel rod pool and the other reactors. They should be pouring concrete around and below them to prevent damage during another earthquake, which will definitely hit sooner than later.

For those of you posting about the court case with the soldiers – here’s why you are committing several logical fallacies.

First, science is not decided in courts. Whatever the outcome of the court case, judges are generally not scientists. Italian courts convicted seismologists a couple years ago of not properly predicting an earthquake. So the outcome – whether it is decided it was radiation that caused these illnesses – has no bearing on the actual science.

Second, we don’t have access to the medical records nor readily available comparison data. Is this rate of cancer above the normal rate for the general population? Is it above the normal rate for the military? Is it above the normal rate for those serving on naval ships? I haven’t seen anything either way on this issue.

Third – if we assume for a second that radiation indeed caused these illnesses. They were fairly close to the reactor (in relative terms) and soon after the initial accident. That is dramatically different than a fish at the bottom of the ocean or someone living on the west coast. If I crank my stereo all the way up and you stand in front of the speaker – you will damage your ears if you stand there long enough. However, if you stand at the end of the block, you will die of starvation before you ever damage your ears. As you move farther away from the source, the exposure is reduced. Time also reduces the intensity – so unless you are very close to the reactor, there is very little chance of any contamination capable of causing damage.

While we should take a look at how we do nuclear power, this accident still does not measure up to Chernobyl. The graphite control rods, the fire, the power spike, the explosions there released much more radioactive materials over a much shorter time than Fukushima. We need to keep perspective, especially when we have a couple of nuclear accidents on which to base our knowledge of this accident.

Mike (nor I) are saying the accident isn’t serious. It is a very serious situation. But it is not dire either. Scientists and engineers are working hard to prevent more radiation from being released – and I think considering the situation they have done a wonderful job. But, even if some more radiation is release, it is bad, but not earth-killing bad.

Eric Hall wrote; ” … it is bad, but not earth-killing bad” In your opinion.

Given the scientific studies are yet to be concluded, will last well over forty years, anyone taking a stand on damage at this point has an agenda. So caution is needed.

There is ‘scare mongering’ and on this issue we all need to on guard as it is counterproductive to genuine analysis.

One serious hurdle to critical thought on this issue is overcoming the belief that energy production is not integral to the nuclear weapons industry. Any data we receive on the production on nuclear power production is filtered through the military bloc. Specifically in this case the IAEA, and even WHO reports directly to the IAEA on nuclear incidents.

Can only recommend setting aside personal bias, taking a look at information from sources other than the ‘authorities’. Naturally those with verifiable credibility*.

Car Sagan modelled the mindset** and our responsibility is called due diligence. As care takers of the coming generations this is our obligation and they will judge us for it.
___________

It’s very likely that radiation from Fukushima is not causing starfish to melt, walrus to suffer or the tuna in my sandwich to glow. However, my understanding is that some of the radioactive material involved is in an unknown state of meltdown. To prevent the situation from worsening, water is sprayed on it to cool things down. Much of this water then leaks into the Pacific Ocean. This process of leakage (or groundwater contamination once the molton mass hits that level) will continue for thousands of years unless the Japanese are able to contain the process. Until this happens, the radiation leaking into the Pacific Ocean will continue. Radioactive particles that remain so from tens to thousands of years. This is a situation calling for urgent world wide response. If your house was smouldering, would you attack me as a fear-monger if I called it to your attention? Would you write an article about how the house could smoulder for years before igniting? Or about how few people die in house fires? How second hand smoke from house fires is negligible as a health risk? The basic risk here is not complicated to understand. This is an urgent situation which requires urgent intervention.

NICURN wrote “Radioactive particles that remain so from tens to thousands of years. ”

Anonymous wrote in reply: “No they don’t. None of their symptoms are consistent with the known affects of radiation.” Can only recommend you look up the half life of these man made particles. You do know what half life is don’t you?

“It should be appreciated that since both h-3 (tritium) and c14 (carbon 14) deposit in the gonads and the DNA and RNA they are a genetic risk to children yet to be born a thousand years from now.” ~ Dr Karl Z Morgan ~ American nuclear physicist

Anonymous wrote; ” … But you know better than everybody else, right?” But are you as qualified and experienced as Adm.Hyman Rickover?

Adm.Hyman Rickover, the Father of the Nuclear Navy and of Shippensport nuclear reactor. In the twilight of his career, he testified before Congress in January 1982. Below is an excerpt from his testimony. Given who this man was and what he did, his statements were profound.

Here’s an excerpt from Rickover’s testimony:

“I’ll be philosophical. Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on earth; that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn’t have any life — fish or anything. Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet and probably in the entire system reduced and made it possible for some form of life to begin…

Now when we go back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible… Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years.

I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it… I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation.

Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships. That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. Have I given you an answer to your question?”

On the hazards of nuclear power.
Testimony to Congress (28 January 1982);
published in Economics of Defense Policy:
Hearing before the Joint Economic Committee,
Congress of the United States, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Pt. 1 (1982)

it also shows a map/graphic of the gradual contamination of the ocean, so polluted water.
of course it will stop when it ‘hits’ land because it shows only the pollution of WATER. (of course i know that radiation in the AIR will not stop when it hits land)

so how can you be so sure that this map has nothing to do with radiation?

Saorise, I addressed the Cesium study map in the fist Fukushima piece I did. The upshot is that most of the versions of that video omit the context of what it means, and that cesium levels will go up slightly for a while, but not anywhere near any kind of dangerous level.

I think it’s now fairly well established that the “scary radiation” map is actually a “wave height” map (partly thanks to this blog – well done guys). But I can’t be the only person annoyed by the caption “Radiation doesn’t hit land and stop. Science!”

The reason the map has nothing to do with radiation is because we now *know* it’s a map of something else. Not because it fails to display land data. If an oceanographic institute somewhere decides to deploy an array of sensors to measure ocean radiation levels (or temperature levels for that matter), the fact that they don’t also measure land data doesn’t invalidate the ocean data.

“Maps of ocean radiation levels don’t need to show land data. Science!”

(again, just to clarify, I know the map has nothing to do with radiation – I’m objecting to the caption not the facts)

Mike Rothschild wrote; ” …. I urge you to make that decision based on sound scientific research and testable claims, not hysterical screeds backed by supposition and fear.” Are Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Really Over.

Like all corporate liability issues any admission of fault by those responsible for the ongoing Fukushima incident is a simply not a legal option.

Because of this hard fact, any actual science pointing to legal liability issues is a direct attack on the ‘corporate and political structure’. A serious problem for the bottom line, even stock value and certainly political credibility of all concerned.

Over relatively recent human history we have seen conservative think tanks fund and use ‘agencies’ for campaigns of disinformation to suit their agenda.

This type of strategy is designed to cloud science, distort views and generates biases that remain in the presence of actual valuable information.

A strategy designed to protect profit and power fought out literally on a geopolitical scale over many decades.

Our due diligence is separating ‘disinformation’ picked up or projected by the known ‘fear mongers’ e.g. CAM* practitioners and ‘followers’ in their ignorance promoting right wing think tanks ‘seeded disinformation’.

The actual environmental and nuclear scientists / specialists who are prepared professionally to be whistleblowers. They have been willing to put up risk genuine risk management scenario and accurate science, recommendations for study but are just overwhelmed by ‘disinformation’.

Our obligation and challenge is to be discerning, by seeing the motives and underlying source. Appreciating the intent and just who benefits before discounting any scientific data or scenario painted using legitimate foresight methodology.

Skeptoid, I admire your semantic skills. You have a good mind. I am looking into some of the “wasting sea star disease” controversy.Of course, more testing is bound to follow. As far as Chew, he is passionate. Thanks for your blog.

TEPCO spokesman “I have distrust in TEPCO itself for not announcing the wrong analysis for this long” TEPCO has been incorrectly analysing Strontium-90 in contaminated water and seawater for 2.5 years since the start of the Fukushima Daiichi 311 incident.

Fukushima Daiichi workers were building the underground wall only a few meters away from the location that they measured 5,000,000,000 Bq/m3 of Strontium-90 in the groundwater. However, TEPCO didn’t inform the workers of the contamination level for over half a year.

There’s all sorts of new problems cropping up in the oceans that have nothing to do with Fukushima and are FAR too mundane to give the media anything to really scream about, so few seem to be talking about it. And by “It” I mean diseases/parasites/viruses/bacteria from land animals being washed into the waters and attacking sea life that have no immunity to such things.

Maryann Fläsch wrote; “There’s all sorts of new problems cropping up … too mundane to give the media anything to really scream about, so few seem to be talking about it.” Good point, appreciate the link.
What is interesting is the environmental changes in our era are experiencing exponential growth. Clearly paralleling the exponential growth in human resource consumption.

To some these may appear ‘mundane’, to others the issues run parallel with damage caused by the nuclear weapons and energy industry.

A level of thought that ignores the orders of magnitude in difference between even the smallest natural system and the most advanced man made system complexity.
Any comparison is naive and an unevolved level of thinking.

naturally like your web site however you need to test the spelling on several of your posts.
Many of them are rife with spelling problems and I to find it very bothersome to inform the reality on the other hand I’ll surely come
back again.